"I've Cheated Death So Many Times"

"I've Cheated Death So Many Times"

In a powerful episode of Sundays with Seegers, a woman known only as “SC” shares how she escaped meth addiction, what recovery really takes, and why she believes local leaders are listening to the wrong voices. What if the people shaping drug policy spent an hour listening to someone who actually lived it? That’s exactly what listeners will hear in the latest episode of Sundays with Seegers, where Clallam County commissioner candidate Jake Seegers sits down with “SC,” a recovering meth addict who has now spent more than 12 years rebuilding her life—and helping others do the same. SC asked to remain anonymous, but her story is anything but hidden. She candidly recounts how she became emancipated at just 16 years old, supported herself through multiple jobs, and was slowly pulled into addiction by the people surrounding her. What began as occasional meth use spiraled into years of abusive relationships, drug dealing, hospitalizations, and eventually a fight for her life. “I’ve cheated death so many times. I’m here for a reason.” Unlike many policy discussions that rely on statistics and reports, SC offers something rarely heard in public meetings: firsthand experience. She explains how addiction is funded through theft, welfare fraud, drug sales, and an underground barter economy where “everything has a dollar sign.” She describes why recovery is so difficult when drugs become not just a substance, but an entire lifestyle built around relationships, money, and survival. Perhaps most striking is her assessment of today’s addiction landscape. While acknowledging the value of tools like naloxone and medication-assisted treatment, she argues that the current system has expanded harm reduction without building enough pathways to recovery. "I think we've expanded a little too much. We should really be trying to focus more on that sense of community and trust into an intervention." SC believes today’s environment is actually harder to escape than the one she left more than a decade ago, citing the arrival of fentanyl, changes in Washington’s drug laws, and what she sees as a growing acceptance of open drug use. “It’s a very inviting environment for chaos,” she tells Seegers. “We’ve made a really inviting climate to use in.” But the interview isn’t simply a critique of policy. It’s ultimately a story of hope. After nearly dying from complications related to addiction, SC says a series of what she calls “divine interventions” gave her one last chance. She cut ties with everyone in her old life, completed outpatient treatment, rebuilt relationships with her family, and today spends her time caring for her disabled mother, raising her daughters, and mentoring others who want to escape addiction. Her message to those still struggling is simple: “You are worth more than your addiction. You are worth more than the worst thing you’ve ever done.” She also leaves local leaders with a challenge that may resonate far beyond Clallam County: “Keeping people alive is important, but helping people build lives worth living is the goal.” It’s one of the most candid conversations yet on Sundays with Seegers—not because it offers easy answers, but because it comes from someone who has lived every side of the crisis. Editor’s Note: SC has chosen to remain anonymous for this interview. Readers interested in following more of her writing and perspective on addiction, recovery, and community issues can follow her at SC’s Substack [https://substack.com/@slcl1223]. "Some of the most talented and brilliant people I've ever met were drug addicts. If they would have asserted all of that energy into something else, they could have done amazing things in the world." — SC SC’s Epilogue I’ve thought more about the question you asked regarding people living in encampments, surrounded by addiction, who want out. I had so many thoughts swirling in my brain that I feel I answered that question poorly and wish to expand. The biggest problem I see is that our current system isn’t built to respond to the moment someone finally decides they want help. Addiction is often accompanied by brief windows of clarity where a person becomes willing to accept treatment, but our system frequently requires appointments, referrals, assessments, transportation, waiting lists, and delays. By the time those pieces come together, that window may have closed. I know that when I have tried to find an immediate solution for someone, I have been met with these barriers, and often I am unable to obtain the structure of help needed in that brief second. If someone asked me today what immediate path exists for an addict living in an encampment who wants out right now, the only answer I could confidently give would be to walk into the emergency room and tell them, “I need help now, not later.” And unfortunately, that won’t complete what is needed after the initial detox and treatment ends. That shouldn’t be the only option. I support aspects of harm reduction because keeping people alive matters. But survival alone shouldn’t be the end goal. Much of that funding can be redirected. Every interaction with someone struggling with addiction should create a clear and immediate pathway toward treatment, recovery, mental health services, stable housing, and ultimately self-sufficiency. When someone reaches the point where they are ready to accept help, the response should be immediate. We should have resources available to connect people with shelter, treatment assessments, detox services, transportation, recovery housing, counseling, and peer support without weeks of delay. I also think our communities need to stop viewing public disorder as something normal. When someone is living in a tent, severely addicted, mentally ill, cycling through arrests, overdoses, emergency rooms, and crisis services, that is not independence. That is a person in crisis. Law enforcement, public health, behavioral health, housing providers, and the courts should all be working together toward the same goal: helping people move toward recovery and stability. Arrests and citations should come with real opportunities for treatment, counseling, and recovery programs. Recovery housing, Oxford-style homes, life-skills training, job training, and peer support should be expanded so people have somewhere to go after treatment. And for those whose addiction or mental illness has progressed to the point that they can no longer make rational decisions for themselves, I believe mandatory treatment should be part of the conversation. I’ve buried too many people, and I’ve watched too many others slowly die while everyone stood back and called it a choice. Compassion isn’t just keeping someone alive another day. Compassion is creating every possible opportunity for them to reclaim their life. The goal should be to make recovery more accessible. You have a good first step idea with making the shelter more attractive to people struggling. The other after thought I had was when you asked what I did for the time in between getting out of the hospital and getting treatment through OPG [Olympic Personal Growth Center], I didn’t answer that well either. I completely focused my energy on getting healthy again. I was weak and under weight so I temporarily replaced my addiction with other activities for that time. I started exercising to build up strength and get my lungs working properly again. I attended AA meetings because I liked the AA meetings better than NA meetings where I experienced a lot of “gate keeping the program” behaviors. I slowly built up my trust and relationships with my family and friends whom I had previously abandoned. I replaced my desire for drugs, with the desire for health and structure. Hope this helps you understand a little better where I should have gone with the conversation. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak up on an issue so near and dear to my heart. — SC Editor’s note: This blog is published by Jeff Tozzer, the former campaign manager of Jake Seegers. None of the content here has ever been approved or paid for by Jake Seegers for Commissioner. To learn more about Jake Seegers, visit JakeSeegers.com [https://www.jakeseegers.com]. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.ccwatchdog.com [https://www.ccwatchdog.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

The Story That Keeps Changing

Last week, Clallam County Auditor candidate Virginia Shogren argued that the Clallam Conservation District changed its election procedures after the official ballot request deadline, expanding the voting pool in an election decided by just 37 votes. Since then, additional public records—including political articles published during the campaign and the district’s replacement ballot log—have added new pieces to the timeline. While none of the records alone proves wrongdoing, together they raise legitimate questions about whether every voter was operating under the same rules and whether the election was administered as the district publicly promised. Last week, CC Watchdog published Virginia Shogren’s investigation [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/conservation-district-2026-election] into the 2026 Clallam Conservation District election. Her article alleged that district officials departed from their own election resolution by expanding the pool of eligible voters after the published ballot request deadline, despite the district’s rules stating that requests made after February 18, 2026, at 4:00 p.m. “will not be fulfilled.” Since that story was published, additional records obtained by CC Watchdog paint a fuller picture of how the election was presented to the public—and how it may have been administered behind the scenes. Individually, each record may have an innocent explanation. Together, however, they raise additional questions that deserve answers. Everyone Appeared to Be Told the Same Thing The election resolution adopted on January 13, 2026, was unambiguous. The district chose to conduct a mail-in-only election and required voters to request a ballot before February 18 at 4:00 p.m. The resolution states plainly: “The last day to request a ballot is Wednesday February 18, 2026 by 4:00 PM. Requests made after the deadline will not be fulfilled.” The district reinforced that message by mailing more than 1,200 notices to previous Conservation District voters explaining that ballots would only be mailed to individuals who submitted a request before the deadline. Shogren’s investigation also documented those notices. That same message continued throughout the campaign. The Public Messaging Never Changed On February 27, longtime political activist Tim Wheeler published an article [https://www.clallamdems.org/blog/seeking-votes-for-wendy-rae-through-indivisible-sequim] in Clallam Democrats Rising describing his efforts to encourage Sequim Indivisible members to request ballots before the deadline. According to Wheeler, he attended the February 16 Indivisible meeting carrying campaign literature for incumbent Supervisor Wendy Rae Johnson. Because the deadline was approaching, he urged attendees to photograph the QR code and immediately request ballots before time expired. Nothing about that effort is inherently unusual. Political campaigns routinely encourage supporters to vote. What is noteworthy is that Wheeler’s article repeatedly reinforces the understanding that requesting a ballot before February 18 was required. One day later, another Clallam Democrats Rising article by Tina Tyler [https://www.clallamdems.org/blog/even-small-elections-can-matter-in-a-big-way] delivered the same message while profiling Johnson’s campaign. The article explained why the Conservation District used requested mail ballots rather than automatically mailing ballots to every registered voter. Johnson was quoted explaining that the district could not afford to mail ballots to all 62,000 registered voters in Clallam County. The article then told readers: “To vote in this year’s election, you would have had to request a ballot by Feb. 18.” At this point, the public message appeared remarkably consistent. The official election resolution said ballots had to be requested by February 18. The district’s mailers said the same thing. A campaign supporter writing in Clallam Democrats Rising emphasized the same deadline. The following day, another article supporting Johnson’s candidacy repeated that voters needed to have requested their ballots before February 18. Nothing in those public communications suggested the voting pool would later be expanded. Then the Story Changed According to Shogren’s investigation, that changed on March 10 during a public Conservation District board meeting. There, candidate Wendy Rae Johnson reportedly disclosed that election officials had merged the official ballot request list with another internal list, resulting in additional ballots being mailed to people who had never requested one for the 2026 election. Election records cited by Shogren show 2,238 ballots were ultimately mailed, despite only 1,921 ballot requests being received—a difference of at least 317 ballots in an election decided by just 37 votes. If those figures are accurate, they raise an obvious question. Why was the public repeatedly told that requesting a ballot by February 18 was mandatory, even though additional ballots were later mailed to individuals who had never submitted a request? That is precisely what the ongoing complaint before the Washington State Conservation Commission seeks to determine. A Curious Statement One passage in Wheeler’s article also stands out. After describing the Indivisible meeting, Wheeler wrote: “Wendy Rae told us later that hundreds of ballot requests came in after that meeting! To say the least, she was very pleased.” Candidates naturally celebrate successful voter outreach efforts. At the same time, the statement suggests Johnson was receiving updates about the volume of ballot requests during the election. Was her opponent receiving the same updates? The article does not explain how she obtained that information or from whom. It may have come from campaign volunteers, public information, election administrators, or another source entirely. Standing alone, the statement proves nothing. Nevertheless, in light of the broader questions surrounding the administration of the election, it is another detail that merits clarification. Replacement Ballots Raise Still More Questions CC Watchdog also reviewed the Conservation District’s replacement ballot log. Providing replacement ballots is a normal part of many elections. Voters sometimes lose or damage their ballots and request another. However, the district’s election resolution describes only one method for receiving an original ballot: submitting a ballot request before the February 18 deadline. The resolution does not expressly describe a replacement ballot process. Cross-referencing the replacement ballot spreadsheet with the district’s ballot request list revealed another apparent discrepancy. At least six individuals who received replacement ballots do not appear on the ballot request list provided by the district. Those names include: * Elizabeth Batson * Fred Kaiser * Sheila Kaiser * Roberta Andison * Walter Boyes * Erik Brihagen This observation should be interpreted cautiously. It does not necessarily mean these individuals voted improperly or that the ballots should not have been issued. Administrative corrections, separate request records, clerical errors, or other explanations may exist that are not reflected in the documents. Even so, the discrepancies underscore why complete transparency is necessary. The Pattern None of these facts, standing alone, proves election misconduct. But viewed together, they present a series of legitimate questions. * The district adopted a resolution establishing a firm ballot request deadline. * The public was repeatedly told that requesting a ballot by February 18 was required. * Political supporters encouraged voters to meet that deadline. * A campaign article published after the deadline still told readers they had needed to request a ballot before February 18. * Yet according to Shogren’s investigation, the voting pool was later expanded beyond those who complied with those published rules. * Replacement ballot records also appear to include recipients who cannot be located on the district’s ballot request list. Perhaps every one of these questions has a perfectly reasonable explanation. If so, the records should demonstrate it. If not, Clallam County voters deserve to know why the rules described in the official election resolution—and repeated in public communications throughout the campaign—appear to differ from the procedures ultimately used to conduct the election. That is precisely why independent investigations exist: not to assume wrongdoing, but to determine whether public confidence in an election has been earned. NOTE: The League of Women Voters of Clallam County, which oversaw the CCD election, did not respond to multiple requests for comment. “Confidence in the integrity of our elections is essential to the functioning of our participatory democracy.” — Sandra Day O’Connor Today’s Tidbit: Who Is the Conservation District Really Working For? Every property owner in Clallam County is now required to pay the Conservation District’s $5 annual parcel assessment following a decision by the County Commissioners. That naturally raises a simple question: Who is the district working for? Earlier this year, the Conservation District discussed three separate letters of support for grant applications submitted by the Washington Water Trust, including projects involving long-term drought response, wetlands restoration, and a deeper well for Jamestown’s Cedars at Dungeness Golf Course. Each letter emphasizes the district’s partnership with the Washington Water Trust, the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, and the Dungeness Water Users Association. The Washington Water Trust is no stranger to the Dungeness Basin. It has long been involved in water management and streamflow restoration efforts connected to the Dungeness Water Rule. Its leadership is also notable. According to his published biography [https://www.washingtonwatertrust.org/team/william-stelle/], Washington Water Trust principal William Stelle spent three decades in federal government, serving as a political appointee under both the Clinton and Obama administrations before leading NOAA Fisheries on the West Coast. Meanwhile, Port Angeles City Councilmember LaTrisha Suggs serves on the Washington Water Trust’s Board of Directors [https://www.washingtonwatertrust.org/team/latrisha-suggs/]. None of this is improper by itself. Partnerships are part of what conservation districts do. But with every property owner now helping fund the Conservation District through a mandatory parcel assessment, residents may reasonably ask whether the district is spending enough time representing all taxpayers—or whether too much of its energy is being devoted to advancing the priorities of a relatively small circle of agencies, advocacy organizations, and stakeholder groups already deeply involved in Dungeness water policy. That’s a fair question for the board—and one worth asking before it approves another round of support letters. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.ccwatchdog.com [https://www.ccwatchdog.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

Who Endorses the Endorsers?

Campaign season is underway, and so is endorsement season. One organization expected to weigh in is Olympic Climate Action, a local advocacy group that says it bases its endorsements on addressing climate change. But after being denied an endorsement without ever receiving a questionnaire or interview, CC Watchdog looked closer at the organization’s leadership, philosophy, and reasoning. The experience raises a broader question for every voter: do endorsements reflect an objective evaluation of candidates, or simply the worldview of the people making them? Endorsement Season Begins Campaign season is upon us, and with it comes endorsement season. Political parties, labor unions, advocacy groups, newspapers, and nonprofit organizations will soon begin telling voters which candidates deserve their support. There is nothing inherently wrong with endorsements. They can help voters navigate a crowded ballot. But endorsements are opinions, not certifications, and before accepting anyone else’s recommendation, it is worth asking a simple question: Who is making the endorsement, and what standards are they using? One organization expected to issue endorsements this year is Olympic Climate Action (OCA). According to its website, the organization’s mission [https://olyclimate.org/about/oca-mission-objectives/] is to “seek a safe, prosperous, sustainable future for residents of the Olympic Peninsula by addressing the threat of climate change.” Its stated objectives include sharing climate science, stimulating community dialogue, advocating for climate-related policies, and serving as a hub for local organizations. Earlier this year, OCA announced it was forming an endorsement committee to recommend candidates for local, state, and federal office. An Endorsement Without a Process The announcement brought back an experience from the 2025 Charter Review Commission election. OCA chose not to endorse me, Jeff Tozzer, as a candidate, so I asked a simple question: How was that decision made? There had been no questionnaire, no interview, and no opportunity to explain positions before the endorsement decisions were made. The response came from OCA President Brian Grad. Before getting to Grad's explanation, it's worth noting that he has become a familiar figure in local politics. During the 2025 Charter Review Commission, he was publicly asked to temper his conduct when addressing the commission. He was also the subject of complaints about his attire [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/equity-at-the-county-fair?utm_source=publication-search] while volunteering at the Clallam County Democrats booth at last year's fair. At the Carlsborg ballot drop box, he appeared to lose control and attempt to remove signage before confronting ballot box observers. Grad’s response explained that my previous reporting on Washington’s Climate Commitment Act made this publication’s views “incompatible with a foundational belief shared among OCA members that we are in a climate crisis.” That explanation was surprising. The issue was never a lack of concern for the environment. Doug and I have long tried to live in a way that minimizes our environmental footprint. Our garden provides much of our food for more than half the year. At the time, we shared a single vehicle while also using a scooter that averaged nearly 60 miles per gallon. We regularly picked up litter in our neighborhood, and we have maintained a vegan lifestyle for years. I haven’t been on an airplane or left the state in six years. Whether those choices deserve an endorsement is beside the point, but they demonstrate that questioning a particular government policy is not the same as dismissing environmental stewardship. Instead, the reporting in question examined whether Clallam County Commissioner Mark Ozias was using county resources and his elected office to advocate for a statewide political campaign, and whether the public deserved greater transparency about who was benefiting from the Climate Commitment Act. Those seemed like reasonable questions for any local watchdog publication to ask. The Questions That Prompted the Rejection The article, titled “Political vs. Public Interests [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/joined-at-the-hip?utm_source=publication-search],” focused on remarks Commissioner Ozias made during the commissioners’ regular “Reports and Presentations” agenda item. Rather than limiting his comments to county business, Ozias encouraged residents to visit Clean and Prosperous Washington, a website actively campaigning against Initiative 2117, the citizen initiative that sought to repeal the Climate Commitment Act. A closer look at the website revealed that it was more than an informational resource explaining Climate Commitment Act spending. It was a political advocacy website encouraging Washington voters to oppose the initiative. During his presentation, Commissioner Ozias highlighted approximately $12.5 million in Climate Commitment Act projects affecting Clallam County and encouraged residents to learn what funding could be lost if the initiative passed. That naturally raised several questions. Should an elected county commissioner use an official board meeting to encourage residents to visit a website advocating for one side of a statewide ballot measure? Should county meetings become venues for political advocacy? Those questions seemed especially relevant because Commissioner Ozias’ largest campaign donor, the Jamestown Corporation, stood to benefit significantly from Climate Commitment Act funding. Were the Article’s Questions Legitimate? Earlier this year, the Washington Department of Ecology acknowledged a significant error in one of its emissions analyses for the CCA after outside researchers identified problems with the calculations. Once corrected, the projected greenhouse gas reductions for eight electrification programs dropped from approximately 7.5 million metric tons to roughly 308,000 metric tons — roughly 96% lower than the original estimate. Ecology maintains that the program delivers benefits beyond the emissions reductions associated with individual projects, but the correction demonstrates that some of the program’s projected benefits were significantly overstated. What seems much harder to argue is that asking questions about the Climate Commitment Act was somehow incompatible with environmental stewardship. Public policy should withstand scrutiny. If asking where taxpayer money is going, who benefits from it, and whether projected outcomes were accurately measured is enough to disqualify a candidate from consideration, then perhaps the endorsement process deserves as much examination as the policies themselves. A Different Worldview As the response from OCA became easier to understand, another section of the organization’s website provided additional context. OCA’s land acknowledgment [https://olyclimate.org/about/lands-and-peoples-acknowledgement/] goes well beyond recognizing the history of the Olympic Peninsula’s tribal communities. It states: “We acknowledge and honor the chalá·at (Hoh), kʷoʔlí·yot’ (Quileute), qʷidiččaʔa·tx̌ (Makah), nəxʷsƛ̕áy̕əm̕ (Klallam), and t͡ʃə́mqəm (Chemakum) peoples... Colonization has shaped the reality of everyone here today. We take this opportunity to acknowledge that fact and express our desire to engage in the process of understanding our ‘landcestry’ and repairing relationships with both people and land, as an investment in our shared future.” The statement helps explain the framework through which OCA evaluates public policy and, ultimately, political candidates. Climate policy, tribal sovereignty, historical injustice, and environmental advocacy are presented as interconnected issues rather than separate debates. Viewed through that lens, questions about the Climate Commitment Act are not merely policy disagreements—they challenge a broader worldview. Do Your Own Homework Organizations like Olympic Climate Action have every right to endorse candidates. So do political parties, labor unions, business associations, newspapers, and advocacy groups across the political spectrum. But endorsements should be understood for what they are: recommendations made by people with their own philosophies, priorities, experiences, and biases. This publication also has opinions. Readers know that. The difference is that opinions should never discourage questions. A healthy democracy depends on citizens asking difficult questions, especially when billions of taxpayer dollars and major public policies are involved. As endorsement lists begin appearing over the coming months, read them with interest—but also with curiosity. Ask who made the decision. Ask whether every candidate was given the same opportunity to participate. Ask whether objective standards were used or whether ideological agreement was the deciding factor. Then do something endorsements can never replace: read the candidates’ own words, attend forums, watch public meetings, and make up your own mind. An endorsement tells you what an organization believes. Only you can decide what you believe. "Uncertainty is the fundamental element of climate science." — Judith Curry Today’s Tidbit: Practice What You Preach? As Olympic Climate Action prepares to endorse candidates this election season, it’s worth taking a look at an essay [https://olyclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/earth-day-2022.pdf] written by Clallam County Commissioner Mark Ozias for the group’s 2022 Earth Day publication. In it, Ozias criticizes what he calls “profit for power,” encourages people to travel less by holding Zoom meetings instead of driving, consume less water, and embrace personal sacrifice in the name of addressing climate change. Since then, Washington’s Climate Commitment Act has transferred millions of dollars to favored projects while increasing fuel costs that fall hardest on working families and those with the lowest incomes. Commissioner Ozias has also traveled to Washington, D.C. twice this year and to Maui for conferences he says were part of representing Clallam County. Readers may reasonably ask how those trips square with his own call to reduce travel whenever possible. The essay also encourages people to conserve water. Has Commissioner Ozias ever publicly encouraged his campaign’s largest donor, the Jamestown Corporation, to reduce irrigation on its golf course or otherwise conserve water? If not, why not? Whether you agree or disagree with Ozias’ philosophy, his Earth Day essay offers insight into the values that continue to shape both Olympic Climate Action and one of Clallam County’s longest-serving commissioners. Read Commissioner Ozias’ essay [https://olyclimate.org/2022/04/27/clallam-countys-district-1-commissioner-mark-oziass-heartfelt-speech-for-earth-day-2022/] and decide for yourself. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.ccwatchdog.com [https://www.ccwatchdog.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

Drought or Déjà Vu? What the Dungeness River Data Actually Show

Every summer, drought warnings return, along with calls to conserve water. But does more than a century of USGS data from the Dungeness River support the increasingly dire narrative? One CC Watchdog subscriber analyzed the public record dating back to 1923, and, together with criticism from renowned meteorologist Cliff Mass, the findings raise an important question: are Washingtonians getting the full picture? Like clockwork, summer has arrived—and so has Washington’s annual drought declaration. The Washington State Department of Ecology has once again declared the entire state to be in drought. Along the Old Olympic Highway, the needle on the familiar League of Women Voters “Low Flow Alert” sign keeps inching toward “extreme,” warning motorists to conserve water. Meanwhile, the Jamestown Corporation’s Dungeness River Nature Center is encouraging residents to reduce their water use. “The snow melting from the mountains feeds the creeks and river below, and with less moisture stored on the ridges, our community down in the valley needs to be especially mindful of water use this season... Conserving water this season is a tangible way to honor the very peaks where our rivers are born.” It is a message few would disagree with. Conserving water is simply good stewardship. But it also raises an obvious question. The same Jamestown Corporation encouraging residents to cut back will also be irrigating its 122-acre golf course throughout the hottest, driest months of the year. Which leads to another question. How unusual are these summer low flows, really? One CC Watchdog subscriber decided not to rely on press releases or advocacy groups. Instead, they downloaded the complete public record from the U.S. Geological Survey’s stream gauge on the Dungeness River near Sequim—more than 100 years of daily flow measurements dating back to 1923—and analyzed the numbers. The results don’t suggest that nothing has changed. Summer flows appear modestly lower than they were decades ago. But they also don’t support the narrative of a river suddenly collapsing into unprecedented conditions. The analysis found that average May through October flows have declined only slightly—about 0.5 cubic feet per second per year—and, importantly, that trend was not statistically significant (p = 0.179). In other words, the long-term record contains enough natural variability that researchers cannot confidently conclude a meaningful long-term trend exists from this data alone. Comparing earlier decades with recent decades tells a similar story. Recent summers average roughly seven to eight percent lower than the early record, but the river still follows the same seasonal pattern it always has. Snowmelt fills the river during late spring. By August and September, flows naturally decline as the Olympic snowpack disappears. That pattern has remained remarkably consistent for over a century. The hydrographs comparing early and recent decades are strikingly similar despite the modest reduction in late-summer flow. Perhaps most surprising is how often the river has historically fallen below today’s warning thresholds. According to the analysis: * Flows below 180 cubic feet per second occurred in 98 percent of recorded years. * Flows below 150 cfs occurred in 94 percent of years. * Even flows below 100 cfs occurred in nearly half of all years on record. In other words, low summer flows are not a new phenomenon. They are characteristic of rivers in the Olympic rain shadow. It’s all laid out in this video: The report’s conclusion is difficult to ignore: “The data do not support narratives of sudden catastrophic collapse outside historical experience... Facts over hype.” Interestingly, these conclusions echo concerns raised by one of the Pacific Northwest’s best-known meteorologists. Earlier this year, University of Washington atmospheric scientist Cliff Mass questioned Washington’s drought declaration [https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2026/04/when-drought-not-drought.html?m=1], arguing that the term “drought” is often misunderstood. Mass noted that while snowpack was below normal in some areas, precipitation had generally been above average, reservoirs remained full, soils were moist, and forecasts called for additional spring precipitation. Most importantly, he argued that a drought is defined not simply by weather conditions but by significant impacts on people, agriculture, or ecosystems. Looking back at 2025, Mass pointed out that Washington agriculture produced excellent crops, reservoirs never approached critical levels, and hydropower production remained close to long-term averages. His conclusion was straightforward: the dire warnings simply did not match the observed impacts. That doesn’t mean water conservation isn’t worthwhile.It doesn’t mean salmon don’t face challenges.It doesn’t mean river management isn’t important. But it does suggest there is room for a more nuanced public conversation. When government agencies declare another drought, are they describing an unprecedented crisis—or a seasonal pattern that has characterized this watershed for generations? It also raises a broader question familiar to many CC Watchdog readers. Throughout the past year, county residents have repeatedly been told that various public policies are supported by “rock solid” science. Whether the subject is harm reduction, homelessness, land management, or drought, citizens often discover that equally credentialed experts interpret the same evidence quite differently. Science is strongest when competing ideas can be examined openly—not when one narrative is treated as beyond question. The USGS river data are public.The Department of Ecology’s declarations are public.Cliff Mass’s analysis [https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2026/04/when-drought-not-drought.html?m=1] is public. Residents can review the information themselves and decide whether the annual drought narrative fully reflects what the numbers actually show. “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” — Richard Feynman Today’s Tidbit: Another Serious Criminal Record Lands in Clallam County A week ago, Mishaela Joene Cutler, 24, was booked into the Clallam County Jail on charges of possession of stolen property, obstructing a law enforcement officer, and residential burglary. But this isn’t her first encounter with the criminal justice system. In 2020, at age 18, Cutler made headlines [https://www.columbian.com/news/2020/jul/24/camas-woman-18-faces-attempted-murder-charge/] across Washington after prosecutors in Skamania County charged her with attempted murder, first-degree arson, burglary, and possession of stolen firearms. According to investigators, home security footage appeared to show Cutler pouring an accelerant around vehicles inside a carport and leading it to the door of an occupied residence before setting the fire. Investigators also alleged the home’s smoke detectors had been disabled. She was arrested and held on $500,000 bail. Now, six years later, Cutler is in Clallam County facing a new set of criminal charges. Every time someone with a lengthy criminal history enters our local justice system, Clallam County taxpayers pick up the tab—housing, meals, medical care while incarcerated, and, if indigent, legal defense. County leaders often speak about compassion and expanding services to those in need. But residents are left to ask another question: What message are we sending to repeat offenders when communities known for generous public services and limited accountability become places they repeatedly end up? Whether by design or by reputation, Clallam County increasingly appears to be attracting people with significant criminal histories—leaving local taxpayers to bear the financial and public safety costs. Correction: Emily Randall’s Signs Are in Compliance Yesterday, I published an article titled “Hypocrisy on Parade [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/hypocrisy-on-parade]” in which I stated that Congresswoman Emily Randall’s campaign signs were not in compliance with Washington State campaign sign requirements. I’m thankful for an engaged CC Watchdog readership who pointed out that I was wrong. Because Emily Randall is a candidate for federal office, her yard signs are governed by the Federal Election Commission [https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/policy-guidance/candgui.pdf] (FEC) rather than Washington’s Public Disclosure Commission (PDC). Under the applicable federal rules, her signs are in compliance. I apologize to Congresswoman Randall and her campaign for incorrectly stating otherwise. If anything, this experience reinforced what I believe the article should have been about in the first place. Rather than criticizing Emily Randall’s campaign, it should have highlighted just how confusing and inconsistent campaign regulations have become. A candidate running for Congress follows one set of disclaimer requirements. A candidate running for county office follows another. Tribal elections appear to follow yet another set of rules, with different—or in some cases no—requirements regarding sponsorship identification, party designation, addresses, or font sizes. It is entirely possible to stand along a parade route in Clallam County and see three campaign signs side by side, each subject to a different legal standard simply because of the office being sought. That strikes me as unnecessarily complicated and difficult for ordinary citizens to navigate. Where I continue to believe hypocrisy exists is not in Emily Randall’s compliance with federal law, but in how campaign laws are enforced and discussed locally. Leadership in the Clallam County Democratic Party supports a Public Disclosure Commission complaint seeking tens of thousands of dollars in penalties against Jake Seegers over campaign disclosure issues. At the same time, when local Democratic trustee Tim Wheeler [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/when-a-communist-shows-up-at-the?utm_source=publication-search] was filmed causing thousands of dollars in damage [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/when-the-law-doesnt-apply?utm_source=publication-search] to public land during an act of environmental activism, the party had nothing to say publicly about it. Reasonable people can disagree on those situations, but they help explain why I titled the original article “Hypocrisy on Parade.” That said, facts matter. I got one wrong, and when that happens, the right thing to do is correct it. Emily, I owe you a smoothie. Tomorrow: Slight Change in Randall’s Schedule This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.ccwatchdog.com [https://www.ccwatchdog.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

Hypocrisy on Parade

When an independent candidate makes a mistake, Democratic leaders demand tens of thousands of dollars in fines. When a sitting Democratic congresswoman appears to make the same mistake, there's silence. Read why this is about far more than campaign signs. Clallam County was alive on Saturday. The Forks and Port Angeles parades were incredibly well attended, with residents celebrating America’s 250th Birthday. But something stood out if you looked closely at the photo: The “Emily Randall” sign behind the Statue of Liberty. Here’s a close-up of the sign design. Notice anything? The sponsorship line—“Paid for by Emily Randall for Congress”—is dramatically smaller than the main text. The “E” in Emily towers about 9 inches tall, the “R” in Randall around 3.5 inches, while the required sponsor message shrinks to roughly 1/3 of an inch. No campaign address is displayed either. It feels petty to point this out—and it is. Yet these exact issues prompted Clallam County Democratic leadership to file a complaint with the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) and push for the first $30,000 in fines [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/signgate-2026?utm_source=publication-search] against the Seegers campaign. Jake Seegers has already spent $3,000 of campaign funds to bring his signs into compliance. That money, combined with significant volunteer hours spent reprinting, replacing, and redistributing signs, has diverted scarce resources away from voter outreach, events, and other core campaign priorities. With multiple complaints now filed, the total penalties being sought against his shoestring independent campaign approach $80,000. What are the odds that Clallam County Democratic leaders meticulously scrutinized Seegers’ signs but somehow overlooked similar issues on Emily Randall’s materials? Or is it far more likely they are selectively weaponizing the PDC to harass a political rival while turning a blind eye to violations on their own side? The contrast couldn’t be clearer. Emily Randall benefits from paid staff, a full Democratic machine to design, print, deploy, and monitor compliant signs, and resources to fight any challenges. Jake Seegers, running as an independent for County Commissioner, has no paid staff and no party backing. Just volunteers trying to get his message out on a shoestring budget. Everything in the system is stacked against the independent outsider. One critic, posting as “Lisa,” took to CC Watchdog to blast the campaign (at the time managed by me, Jeff Tozzer). She lectured on transparency and accountability, accusing the campaign of deflection instead of ownership. She questioned what kind of leadership Seegers would bring and floated conspiratorial hints about hidden influences. Yes, the campaign could have—and should have—caught it. Mistakes happen. But it’s revealing that a sitting Congresswoman and her professional staff made the same error. Even the PDC itself doesn’t always get it right. The PDC’s Own Transparency Failures The agency charged with enforcing campaign transparency in Washington state settled a lawsuit after being accused of violating the state’s Open Public Meetings Act for nearly two years. They agreed to pay $25,000 and send commissioners for extra training. The commission had repeatedly entered closed sessions without properly announcing the purpose or expected end time, as required by law. Seasoned officials stumble too. Longtime Clallam County Commissioner Mark Ozias (a Democrat) received a formal written warning from the PDC for late C-4 reports in his 2023 campaign. This wasn’t his first brush with the commission. Earlier complaints [https://www.pdc.wa.gov/rules-enforcement/enforcement/enforcement-cases/59100] in 2019–2020 highlighted issues with expenditure details, filing fees, and balance discrepancies—challenges his wife and treasurer attributed to being first-time candidates thrust into complex rules on short notice. They amended reports and worked through the process. The point? PDC rules are intricate, compliance is burdensome, and unintentional errors are common—even for experienced politicians with party support and paid help. Yet Democratic leadership in Clallam County is demanding up to $80,000 in fines from Jake Seegers’ independent campaign. This isn’t equal enforcement. It’s selective harassment designed to tie up resources, deter volunteers, and discourage anyone who dares challenge the machine without big-money backing. Running as an independent is already an uphill battle: no coordinated party infrastructure, no shared legal/compliance teams, and all the scrutiny with none of the support. When the system piles on petty fines while looking the other way at similar (or worse) issues on the other side, it reinforces what many voters already suspect—politics is rigged against the little guy. Voters deserve real transparency and accountability. That starts with consistent application of the rules, not weaponizing them against independents while insiders skate by. Jake Seegers’ campaign continues fighting not just for votes, but for a fair shot in a system that too often favors the connected over the committed. "No man is above the law, and no man is below it." — Theodore Roosevelt Today’s Tidbit: Coming Soon to Port Angeles Last September, CC Watchdog reported [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/predators-in-our-parks-on-our-buses?utm_source=publication-search] on registered sex offender Joseph Alaxander Bell, who was booked into the Clallam County Jail on theft. Bell’s criminal history spans years and includes arrests involving domestic violence, assault, theft, and repeated contacts with law enforcement related to drug use and overdoses. Bell was arrested again on Saturday for burglary, possession of a controlled substance, and malicious mischief. His story raises a question that deserves to be asked: after years of taxpayer-funded services, free transit, harm reduction supplies, emergency medical responses, jail stays, and court-appointed attorneys, has the harm been reduced for Joseph Bell—or for the community? Later this month, taxpayers will have an opportunity to see the county’s newest response to chronic homelessness. On Monday, July 27, Peninsula Behavioral Health will celebrate the opening of North View, a new 36-unit Permanent Supportive Housing complex at 138 W. 2nd Street in Port Angeles. According to PBH, the project is designed to provide stable housing for people experiencing chronic homelessness while connecting residents with behavioral health services intended to promote long-term stability, health, and recovery. The building includes amenities many working families don’t enjoy in their own homes, including air conditioning, dishwashers, EV charging stations, a dog-washing station, and panoramic views of the harbor and Olympic Mountains. It is also considered low-barrier housing, meaning alcohol and drug use may be discouraged but, by itself, are not grounds for eviction. The project has also become part of this year’s county commissioner campaign. On his reelection website [https://www.electmikefrench.com/platform], Commissioner Mike French highlights North View as an example of the kind of affordable housing he supports and points to it as a significant community investment. North View is designed to prioritize the chronically homeless who struggle with addiction and frequent incarceration. In other words, Joseph Bell could ultimately trade life on the streets for a rooftop terrace and dishwasher. Whether North View represents a turning point in addressing chronic homelessness or simply another expensive chapter in Clallam County’s current approach is a question the public will soon be able to evaluate for themselves. Taxpayers helped fund this project. If you’ve been wondering what that investment looks like, mark Monday, July 27, on your calendar and take the tour. Then ask yourself the question that matters most: Will projects like North View produce better outcomes—for the people living there and for the community paying for them? This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.ccwatchdog.com [https://www.ccwatchdog.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]